Byron York: Paul Manafort has a point

[Geee]

Washington Examiner

It's not a popular thing to defend Paul Manafort, the international influence peddler who ran Donald Trump's presidential campaign for a short time in 2016. Just search for "Manafort" and, say, "sleazeball," and see what comes up. But even bad guys have a case sometimes. And Manafort has a case in his lawsuit against Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein.
Mueller sent Manafort a strong message last July, when FBI agents working for Mueller, guns drawn, broke into Manafort's house in the pre-dawn hours while Manafort and his wife slept inside. Mueller sent another message last October, when he indicted Manafort on eight counts (out of a total of 12) targeting allegedly criminal acts that ended in 2014 or 2015, before Manafort's participation in the Trump campaign. None of the counts concerned alleged collusion during the 2016 campaign between Trump or his associates and Russia.

[Geee]

If Mueller moves beyond collusion to charge Trump, constitutional clash may follow

Any move by special counsel Robert Mueller to go beyond collusion and obstruction of justice to probe possible money laundering by President Trump and his family could trigger a major constitutional clash — and present Congress with a massive political headache.
With nearly eight months gone by and some $7 million spent on Mr. Mueller’s Russia probe, speculation is mounting over when, whether and how the former FBI director might attempt to charge President Trump with a crime.
While sources say Mr. Mueller is “obsessed” with examining Mr. Trump’s network of business interests for potential money laundering infractions, there is a raging debate among legal scholars over whether that actually falls within the special counsel’s mandate.
That debate spilled into the open last week, when lawyers for Paul Manafort filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court directly challenging Mr. Mueller’s legal authority to investigate and indict the former Trump campaign manager on pre-2016 money laundering charges.:snip:

[Draggingtree]

2 hours ago, Geee said:

If Mueller moves beyond collusion to charge Trump, constitutional clash may follow

Any move by special counsel Robert Mueller to go beyond collusion and obstruction of justice to probe possible money laundering by President Trump and his family could trigger a major constitutional clash — and present Congress with a massive political headache.
With nearly eight months gone by and some $7 million spent on Mr. Mueller’s Russia probe, speculation is mounting over when, whether and how the former FBI director might attempt to charge President Trump with a crime.
While sources say Mr. Mueller is “obsessed” with examining Mr. Trump’s network of business interests for potential money laundering infractions, there is a raging debate among legal scholars over whether that actually falls within the special counsel’s mandate.
That debate spilled into the open last week, when lawyers for Paul Manafort filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court directly challenging Mr. Mueller’s legal authority to investigate and indict the former Trump campaign manager on pre-2016 money laundering charges.:snip:

I think his lawsuit will be  tossed.

[Geee]

1 hour ago, Draggingtree said:

I think his lawsuit will be  tossed.

Probably, but there is a point here. The Special Counsels should concentrate on what they are put there for period.... If they find something else in the process, refer it to the Justice Department and let it fall where it may.